SHAMBHU DAYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant (Shambhu Dayal) had been sent up to stand his trial under Section 409 IPC in two cases. Both the cases were consolidated and tried together. THE trial court convicted the applicant in both the cases and in each case sentenced him to six months' RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved, the applicant went up in appeal; he filed two appeals -one was numbered Appeal No. 82 of 76 and the other was numbered Appeal No. 84 of 76. Both the appeals were heard separately, but they were decided on one and the same date i.e., 27-9 - 76. THE appellate court dismissed both the appeals, but modified the sentences which had been awarded to the applicant. THE sentences of imprisonment awarded to the applicant were set aside, but the fine imposed upon the applicant in both the cases was maintained. In both the appeals the appellate court allowed the applicant time till 12-10 - 1976 to pay the fine that had been imposed upon him. THE applicant did not pay the fine within the period allowed to him, instead, he deposited the fine in both the cases on 21 - 10-77. While depositing the fine on 21-10-77 the applicant gave an application for condonation of delay in depositing the fine within the time allowed to him by the appellate court. His application was rejected and he was taken in custody. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the appellate court, the applicant came up in revision to this Court.

(2.) THE short question that this revision raises is as to what is the effect of non-payment of fine by an accused within the period allowed by the court- will the non-payment within that period put the accused's freedom in jeopardy even if he happened to pay the entire fine though beyond that period. Under law as soon as fine is imposed upon an accused person he has to be taken in custody forthwith if he does not pay the fine imposed upon him. THE court can, however, under Section 424 CrPC suspend its order and grant some time to the accused to pay that fine. That time is, however, not dead-end of the matter. To say that thereafter the accused cannot be permitted to pay the fine imposed upon him and he must, therefore, go to Jail would not be correct as that would run counter to what is mentioned in Section 68 IPC. Section 68 IPC says that the imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of fine shall terminate whenever that fine is either paid or levied by process of law. This means that it is open to the accused to pay fine at any time he likes to pay and the moment he pays it, his imprisonment in default of payment of fine would stand terminated. If his imprisonment will stand terminated after payment of fine then what can stop him from paying the fine before he is sent to Jail. THErefore, if the applicant paid the fine even though late the court should not have ignored that payment and taken the applicant in custody. Once the applicant had paid the fine, the imprisonment which had been in-posed upon him, in defaut of payment of that fine, should have been taken to have terminated.